Page 816 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Ms Lawder has brought forward a specific motion today in this space. I have looked at this quite closely. I think that we do need to make sure that we have a comprehensive approach to the elimination of violence against women and their children, one that is evidence based and well resourced to address primary prevention, crisis response, overlapping vulnerability and also long-term support. These are all elements of what we are looking at here.
In terms of the specific inquiry that has been started by the Attorney-General and the Chief Minister, the attorney has taken us through the terms of reference of that inquiry. I think we have seen a very proactive approach by the government in response to a particular incident—using that as a prompt to look at some of the systemic issues that are underlying the government response. I think the terms of reference which the attorney has touched on today are quire thorough in that regard.
One of the most interesting questions for me in this space is the issue of information sharing and how that intersects with the right to privacy and how in the context of privacy considerations government can most effectively share information across agencies, across people with a level of responsibility in this space whilst at the same time giving people their expected right to privacy. I find that a very challenging issue.
In portfolios that I have held and issues that I have looked at over time, this has come up. I am sure all members have experienced this: one’s desire to probe into an issue or to get a better outcome for somebody butts up against that consideration of privacy. I think that the third term of reference identified here—the extent to which ACT authorities are legally able to and do actually share and receive information on at-risk families internally and with other jurisdictions—is a particularly interesting discussion. I will be fascinated to see what the findings are from Mr Glanfield on this matter because I think it is a challenging area and one that warrants a thorough debate.
In terms of the motion that Ms Lawder has brought forward, she has today talked particularly about the need to broaden the scope of the inquiry. Having listened carefully to what Ms Lawder was saying, it was not entirely clear to me how that scope should be broadened. Certainly there was some discussion about the ability for members of the public to make input to Mr Glanfield’s work. I thank the Attorney-General for outlining the fact that that is possible for people.
I understand that some people have already made contributions based on their own experiences. It is clear that where people want to contribute to this there is scope to do that. I think that is important. While this is a systemic review looking particularly at government operations, clearly individual case studies, whilst they are not the focus of the review, shine a light on some of those systemic issues. So the capability for people to make those submissions, I think, is a welcome one.
Points were made about the time line. I accept, again, the attorney’s arguments on that. Ms Lawder has proposed some dates. They are ones that she feels are appropriate. It is quite clear from the terms of reference that Mr Glanfield is to report to the Chief Minister by 22 April, which I think is quite a prompt inquiry. I welcome the fact that this is not necessarily a long, drawn out matter but one that seeks, in a very focused way, to find outcomes in a short time frame.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video